Talk:Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Week 6

Joelenne Revak CQ #2 Brown vs. Board of Education

My question comes from the “Legal Criticism” at the end of the Brown vs. Board of Education through the Wikipedia website. A law clerk for Robert Jackson in 1952, William Rehnquist, states in a memo, “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are.” I think Rehnquist is trying to say is more emphasized in the latter of the paragraph, that there is not a voice of representation for minority groups at the higher levels of the Government. Take in just our system of which someone can be elected to an office in the Legislature or Executive Branch; they have stipulations such as being a natural born citizen, age requirements, education requirements, family ties, ect. I think Rehnquist is pointing out at the time of Plessy Vs. Ferguson there was no chance of the Black community being elected into office based on the stipulations, and therefore there was a need to give the minorities that were not represented a voice in Congress. The statement still does not sit well with me, as I agree completely with the decision of the Warren case, that “separate educational facilities are adherently unequal.” It is easier to prove education vs. a train car as stated in class, however it seems that the U.S. law upholds the idea of intent. A person is not liable of a trial for murder if he or she killed someone after the person attacked them first. It is considered self-defense. Same with a person that did not see someone else run in front of their car, and the runner was killed on site. The driver is not tried for murder; it is called an “accident.” In both cases the intent was not set out to harm the injured person. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, there seems to be a wave of intent to keep the Black population separate from society. If they could not ride in the same cars, they could not walk on the same street, they could not eat in the same places, and they could not learn the same things or have the same experiences. If election of office was based on education and other stipulations, the intent seems to overflow in the idea of never giving the Black population representation or the means to change their circumstances. I agree that the minority needs to be represented in office and at the Federal Level of the government, and the tragedy of certain populations not being represented is apparent in our society today; i.e. the poor class, Native Americans ect. However, I do not agree that Plessy v. Ferguson created an environment of representation. The ruling of the case only created further barriers for the Black communities to be seen as a population that should be given undeniable human rights.

Joelenne Revak Phi of Law CQ #4

Slaughter House Cases

My question comes from the decision on the Slaughter House Case where there was zoning restrictions on slaughter houses to regulate waste and trafficking of livestock. I agree with the notion that the Federal system also upholds the State system and the State Police who have an end to protect public health. I agree with the State giving the slaughter houses the privileges to set up their market, and the ability of the State to also take away the privileges. It is also sound to say that one company must be held responsible when dealing with a concern such as public health, in turn other companies must pay a fee to the first company that is held responsible. It becomes a flawed system however, when “public health” is determined to be more important in certain parts of the state. My question is what did the State do to protect the health of the public where these Slaughter Houses were established, especially with the knowledge that these zoning districts were restricted to poorer communities? By setting up zoning restrictions, the state is also resonating with segregated neighborhoods. The concept is still in play today where poorer communities usually are made up of minority groups that are only able to receive lower paying jobs because of education level or language barriers. The problem grows when there are no protection laws for these poorer communities. Big corporations follow the zoning districts that have been assigned in the past, and these poorer communities are not only subject to slaughter house waste, but land fills, toxic waste dumps, smoke stacks, and human research. Where is the protection of the public health when these communities end up with infertility, cancers, tumors, asthma, kidney failure, circulatory problems, and leukemia? The fact is that all of these things have happened, and the only promise is suing the corporations. A multibillion dollar company that generated 100,000 million dollars in three months time is fined 2 million dollars and we call it justice. How much is a personal freedom or personal health that is supposedly an inalienable right really worth?